COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE SINA ASHRAFI
SINA ASHRAFI ' ' ' ' BACHMAN’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE Bachman’s model of CLA is an expansion of what went before, and does two things which make it different from earlier models. Firstly, it clearly distinguishes between what constitutes ‘knowledge’ and what constitutes a ‘skill’,which was left unclear in the model of Canale; secondly, it explicitly ‘attempts to characterize the processes by which the various components interact with each other and with the context in which language use occurs’ (Bachman, 1990: 81). The three components of CLA for Bachman are language competence (knowledge); strategic competence (the ‘capacity for implementing the components of language competence in contextualized communicative language use’, ibid.: 84); and psychophysiological mechanisms, which enable ‘the actual execution of language as a physical phenomenon’. Strategic competence is also said to be affected by the knowledge structures (world knowledge) of the language user. ' ' ' ' 1. Language competence (Knowledge of language) 2. Knowledge structures (Knowledge of the world) 3. Strategic competence 4. Psychophysiological mechanisms 5. Context of situation The two elements of discourse competence, cohesion and coherence, are split up. Cohesion occurs explicitly under textual competence, while coherence as a title disappears and is subsumed under illocutionary competence. This is because the left-hand branch of the tree concerns the formal aspects of language usage, comprising grammatical competence and textual competence. The latter concerns knowledge of how texts (spoken or written) are structured so that they are recognized as conventional by hearers or readers. The right-hand side of the tree is now described by the superordinate term pragmatic competence, which is defined as the acceptability of utterances within specific contexts of language use, and rules determining the successful use of language within specified contexts. Pragmatic competence is therefore broken into two further components. Illocutionary competence concerns the performance of language functions, as described by Halliday (1973), and speech acts (following Austin, 1962). The functions listed in Figure A3.4 are: ■ Ideational: expressing propositions, information or feelings ■ Manipulative: affecting the world around us, including ■ Instrumental: getting things done through the use of speech acts ■ Regulatory: controlling the behaviour of others ■ Interactional: managing interpersonal relationships ■ Heuristic: extending our knowledge of the world ■ Imaginative: the humorous or aesthetic use of language. Sociolinguistic competence is defined as ‘the sensitivity to, or control of the conventions of language use that are determined by the features of the specific language use context; it enables us to perform language functions in ways that are appropriate to that context’ (Bachman, 1990: 94). The components that are identified as being relevant are: ■ dialect or variety ■ differences in register field of discourse (context) mode of discourse (discourse domain) style of discourse (frozen, formal, consultative, casual, intimate) ■ sensitivity to naturalness (what we would expect a native to say in the context) ■ cultural references and figures of speech. Everything that occurs under the hierarchy in Figure A3.4 is part of a model of language knowledge. It is strategic competence that now drives the model of the ability for language use. Bachman argues that strategic competence is best seen in terms of a psycholinguistic model of speech production, made up of three components: Assessment component ■ Identify information needed for realizing a communicative goal in a particular context. ■ Decide which language competences we have to achieve the goal. ■ Decide which abilities and knowledge we share with our interlocutor. ■ Evaluate the extent to which communication is successful. Planning component ■ Retrieve information from language competence. ■ Select modality or channel. ■ Assemble an utterance. Execution component ■ Use psychophysical mechanisms to realize the utterance. The 1990 model was amended and restructured in Bachman and Palmer (1996), a text which took forward and made more explicit some of the changes that Bachman had made to the Canale and Swain formulations, and which sought to articulate the model for the teaching of language testing. The changes that are most significant, as discussed by McNamara (1996: 72) and Celce-Murcia et al. (1995), are: ■ the introduction of affective (non-cognitive) factors in language use ■ re-labelling ‘knowledge structures’ as ‘topical knowledge’, and ■ reconceptualizing strategic competence as a set of metacognitive strategies. The 1996 model is presented in Figure A3.5, which again reinforces the central role given to strategic competence in the model. Affective schemata for Bachman and Palmer (1996: 65) are the ‘affective or emotional correlates of topical knowledge’, or the memories or past experiences that determine whether an individual will engage with a particular task and, if they do, the level of linguistic flexibility they will bring to it. This is discussed within two scenarios. Firstly, there may be highly charged topics with which speakers from some cultures or backgrounds may not interact. On the other hand, if a test taker feels strongly about a topic they may be motivated to engage more energetically with it. Hence, affective schemata interact with topical knowledge (previously referred to as knowledge structures, or background knowledge) to produce reactions to which the test developer should be sensitive.While the change in terminology is not significant, the introduction of affective factors is recognized as a major step forward in making the model much more complex. Finally, strategic competence is defined as a set of metacognitive strategies or ‘higher-order processes’ that explain the interaction of the knowledge and affective components of language use. These are explained in terms of goal setting, assessment and planning. ' '